translation-grammar technique vs non- translation-non-grammar technique

Discuss any questions in English. Practise your writing skills.

Модератор: zymbronia

Dragon27
Сообщения: 2163
Зарегистрирован: 01 мар 2018, 06:57
Благодарил (а): 32 раза
Поблагодарили: 847 раз

#101

Сообщение Dragon27 »

acapnotic пишет: 30 янв 2020, 11:58 If it was God, and therefore omnipotent, it could have created anything and anyone, even itself. Are you trying to limit God's power?
But what happened after what, then?
the word worked and created a god, who, a little surprised but glad to be so lucky, immediately started creating the universe
So did Word destroyed God first, in order to create him (since "the Word was with God" already), or it just simply reloaded the essence of an already existing God?
Аватара пользователя
acapnotic
Сообщения: 3912
Зарегистрирован: 02 мар 2018, 07:49
Благодарил (а): 279 раз
Поблагодарили: 922 раза

#102

Сообщение acapnotic »

Dragon27, in my hypothesis, obviously, the word appeared earlier. If you have more trust in the biblical story, it's up to you to explain who stood on whom there. ;)
Dragon27
Сообщения: 2163
Зарегистрирован: 01 мар 2018, 06:57
Благодарил (а): 32 раза
Поблагодарили: 847 раз

#103

Сообщение Dragon27 »

But that's not fair, you said:
acapnotic пишет: 18 янв 2020, 09:56 But the Bible says that in the beginning there was a word.
And then just hijacked the Word to create your own story ):
Аватара пользователя
acapnotic
Сообщения: 3912
Зарегистрирован: 02 мар 2018, 07:49
Благодарил (а): 279 раз
Поблагодарили: 922 раза

#104

Сообщение acapnotic »

Dragon27, words don't belong to anyone in particular, they are common property. Yes, I used that as a starting point, but then I went a different way and gave my own interpretation.
Аватара пользователя
Michelangelo
Сообщения: 4958
Зарегистрирован: 12 апр 2018, 08:19
Благодарил (а): 32 раза
Поблагодарили: 705 раз

#105

Сообщение Michelangelo »

acapnotic пишет: 30 янв 2020, 10:59 Can you imagine an object that is simultaneously a wave and a particle?
I cannot imagine either a wave or a particle smaller than a grain of sand. If I cannot see it, it doesn’t exist :) Actually I can agree on existence of small particles which are as small as electrons or even smaller. I don’t know how I can imagine a wave except one in the sea. But it must be a number of particles which can amount up and then drop down. Thus the wave should be a movement of particles. That is why I can imagine that there is no wave as something which doesn’t have any weight, but it could consist of a number of absolutely invisible and very light particles. Therefore, a wave for me is something which is created by invisible particles, but could be measured itself as a trace of those particles. That is why I sooner believe that light is a number of particles which move in waves – up and down, wider and narrower, larger and smaller. The question then is why those small weightless particles carry on so much energy. I think we must agree on the fact that energy is something which is an integral part of material, and material consist of particles, therefore, particles have energy. The next question is what energy is? We know about two type of energy – kinetics and dynamics, which transfer each into another. This is difficult to imagine.
However, this notion is already old news in physics.
We have just agreed upon this statement and just don’t think much of it. But when you think of it, you could see that it could be comparable with the notion “word” or “God” – it is as much incomprehensible as those. For us it is just easier not to think of that and be convinced that we understand the nature of such things, whereas we don’t.
If nothingness can produce a god, then why can't it produce a word?
We return back to the question what was first an egg or a chicken. If God existed before the creation of the universe, where he could be contained? If nothingness created God, where it could place him once there was nothing? The Big Bang theory seems to satisfy everybody and matches to the Bible. But when we look into what was before the Big Bang we wouldn’t comprehend or understand or even imagine that. The human brain seems not to be able to comprehend something which was not in existence but still existed.
If you were completely deaf, words in their sound form wouldn't be of any use to you.
I think something different is meant under “word”, because it must be something universal, and a “word” would make sense only for those who know its meaning. Therefore, “word” must mean something else but a common meaning of this word. What could the meaning be we can just guess. I think it must be something that was essential for God and could have been an empty notion for all the other (not people but for anything, as people didn’t exist in period of nothingness). That is why we couldn’t hear or read that “word” because we didn’t exist when the “word” existed.
Аватара пользователя
Michelangelo
Сообщения: 4958
Зарегистрирован: 12 апр 2018, 08:19
Благодарил (а): 32 раза
Поблагодарили: 705 раз

#106

Сообщение Michelangelo »

acapnotic пишет: 30 янв 2020, 11:51 Since nothingness has no qualities, it therefore has no limitations on what it can do.
We don’t know what nothingness can have. If it has nothing, it cannot have limitations because it must be limit itself and nothingness is nothing to limit to. Its limitlessness could be possible as no limits could be established. It is approximately the same as our universe – we cannot limit it as it is infinite, and nothingness otherwise has not limits because they are null and void. It is the same as voidness. Emptiness could have limits only due to the fact that there is something out of the emptiness, but voidness means there is nothing outside it as no outside exists.
The logical conclusion is that nothingness is omnipotent.
Even if I agree upon its omnipotence, I will disagree on your reasoning. If it doesn’t have weight, it doesn’t have kinetic energy or dynamic energy. Nothing that has not weight, no energy, i.e. has nothing, cannot be omnipotent due to those features, but it can be omnipotent due to its ability to absorb anything that exist and make it null and void.
When Adam and Eve ate the apple from the forbidden tree, they started to know something, and so they lost the ability to know nothing.
This is absolute truth. If you know something, you cannot know nothing. Therefore, somethingness is much worse than nothingness, because it made Adam and Eve unhappy as compared with that status of complete ignorance. However, if Adam and Eve existed, we cannot state that there was nothing at that time. There was nothing in their heads, but it couldn’t mean that nothing existed in Eden. There was something in Eden in that time, therefore, it is hardly possible to say that nothing existed in the heads in Adam and Eve. Thus, it is unknown whether it was the snake who implemented something into their heads, or they already had something and the snake just granted that something with ability to develop and learn the surrounding world which was at that time greater than nothing.
Аватара пользователя
acapnotic
Сообщения: 3912
Зарегистрирован: 02 мар 2018, 07:49
Благодарил (а): 279 раз
Поблагодарили: 922 раза

#107

Сообщение acapnotic »

Michelangelo пишет: 31 янв 2020, 14:46 I cannot imagine either a wave or a particle smaller than a grain of sand.
That's unbelievable. Imagine that you take a grain of sand and hit it with a hammer. The particles that will result from that are smaller, and I don't see why you can't imagine them. Or maybe right now you can see a cover of dust on your monitor's screen. Its particles are definitely smaller than those of sand, aren't they? You are too pessimistic about your capabilities.
Michelangelo пишет: 31 янв 2020, 14:46 That is why I sooner believe that light is a number of particles which move in waves – up and down, wider and narrower, larger and smaller.
No, it's a wave of an electromagnetic field. It may again be difficult to imagine. That's why intellect is more powerful than imagination.
Michelangelo пишет: 31 янв 2020, 14:46 The next question is what energy is?
It's the amount of work that can be done. The more energy you have, the more work you can do. Whether building something or destroying it. A brick falling on your head has more energy than a feather, that's why you might not notice the latter but not the former.
Michelangelo пишет: 31 янв 2020, 14:46 For us it is just easier not to think of that and be convinced that we understand the nature of such things, whereas we don’t.
What is that nature of such things? What do you mean by the word 'nature' here?
Michelangelo пишет: 31 янв 2020, 14:46 If God existed before the creation of the universe, where he could be contained?
In himself. You are big enough to contain yourself, aren't you? Why was God not big enough to contain himself?
Аватара пользователя
Michelangelo
Сообщения: 4958
Зарегистрирован: 12 апр 2018, 08:19
Благодарил (а): 32 раза
Поблагодарили: 705 раз

#108

Сообщение Michelangelo »

acapnotic пишет: 06 фев 2020, 15:00 Or maybe right now you can see a cover of dust on your monitor's screen. I
You are talking about a layer of dust. I cannot imagine just one small piece of dust. Can you separate just one unit of what is covering your computer screen to see it without a microscope? I cannot. That is why I cannot imagine it without having seen it before. Like you said I can believe that it exists, even without having seen it, but it is not imagination it is belief.

Anyway, if we are talking about light particles, I don’t remember that they could be seen even through a nuclear microscope, through which even atoms in a substance could be seen.
acapnotic пишет: 06 фев 2020, 15:00 it's a wave of an electromagnetic field
What is electromagnetic field I can just guess. All that theory about that field hasn’t made me a connoisseur in that field. Again, I believe it exists as we have a lot of devices operating on its principles and due to its energy. It doesn’t help me imagine it. It is invisible.
acapnotic пишет: 06 фев 2020, 15:00 What is that nature of such things? What do you mean by the word 'nature' here?
When I speak about energy I didn’t mean any specific kind of energy but just the fact that it is unseen and it is difficult to imagine where it comes from and where it goes then. They say when we lower the temperature to absolute zero, a body will have no energy, therefore, I cannot imagine where it would have gone once it was inside that body. Why does absolute zero deprive a body from its energy? Where does it go? They say that energy will change into another kind of energy. In which kind it will change at the absolute zero temperature? I don’t know.

Under the word “nature” I mean a process or a state of how everything is connected and transfer energy and why and when. We could force us to understand only what is written in textbooks and to a certain extend. But what is beyond the textbooks?
acapnotic пишет: 06 фев 2020, 15:00 You are big enough to contain yourself, aren't you? Why was God not big enough to contain himself?
I understand that I could be contained in myself, but myself is contained in the environment, because the environment exist. If it didn’t exist, where could I be contained? Nowhere. Therefore it is logically to suppose that I wouldn’t exist.
If God was contained in himself, and that himself was contained in nothingness, where it was contained then? Isn’t this a riddle?
Аватара пользователя
acapnotic
Сообщения: 3912
Зарегистрирован: 02 мар 2018, 07:49
Благодарил (а): 279 раз
Поблагодарили: 922 раза

#109

Сообщение acapnotic »

Michelangelo пишет: 06 фев 2020, 17:13 I understand that I could be contained in myself, but myself is contained in the environment, because the environment exist. If it didn’t exist, where could I be contained? Nowhere.
Why nowhere? You say that you understand that you can be contained in yourself and then you say you don't understand it? Well, I really don't understand you. :)
Michelangelo пишет: 06 фев 2020, 17:13 If God was contained in himself, and that himself was contained in nothingness, where it was contained then?
Where is "all that exists" contained? There is nothing except it, presicely because it's "all that exists". So, logically, it's contained in itself. Does that mean that "all that exists" doesn't exist? Obviously not.
Аватара пользователя
acapnotic
Сообщения: 3912
Зарегистрирован: 02 мар 2018, 07:49
Благодарил (а): 279 раз
Поблагодарили: 922 раза

#110

Сообщение acapnotic »

Michelangelo пишет: 06 фев 2020, 17:13 They say when we lower the temperature to absolute zero, a body will have no energy
Well, that sounds a bit odd if we take into account the famous formula E=mc2. There isn't temperature in it, only mass and the speed of light. However, warmth is also a kind of energy. The body loses it through electromagnetic waves which every warm body emits. This is how you would lose warmth in space, where you are surrounded by vacuum. Your body emits infrared waves. And since photons have mass, you also lose mass through this radiation, so the above formula must work correctly. Your mass decreases, and so does your full energy. But even at absolute zero you will still have mass, so your energy can't be zero.
Dragon27
Сообщения: 2163
Зарегистрирован: 01 мар 2018, 06:57
Благодарил (а): 32 раза
Поблагодарили: 847 раз

#111

Сообщение Dragon27 »

Guys, let's use modern terminology, shall we? Mass is invariant, photons don't have it, relativistic mass is an outdated concept. Absolute zero is unachievable, and even at absolute zero there's still quantum zero-point energy. Energy is not "something", it's a property of something (of matter). You can't see energy the way you can't see mass, or speed (but you can see objects moving at certain speeds). E=mc^2 is incorrect in general, it's either E0=mc^2 or E=√((mc^2)^2+(pc)^2).
Michelangelo пишет: 06 фев 2020, 17:13 if we are talking about light particles, I don’t remember that they could be seen even through a nuclear microscope
What are you expecting to see in a light particle through a microscope? It doesn't have any structure anyway. A human eye is sensitive enough to pick out single photons (in the visible spectrum), so you can do without a microscope.
Аватара пользователя
acapnotic
Сообщения: 3912
Зарегистрирован: 02 мар 2018, 07:49
Благодарил (а): 279 раз
Поблагодарили: 922 раза

#112

Сообщение acapnotic »

Dragon27 пишет: 07 фев 2020, 09:18 Guys, let's use modern terminology, shall we?
What for? The purpose of this thread is relaxed chat about this or that for language practice, not taking exams in physics or any other science. Let's not chase two hares. If we decide to stick to "modern terminology" in everything that we discuss here, Michelangelo and I will have to learn it first, which isn't our objective and so will be rather boring, let alone the amount of time it will take. So, obviously, we will learn anything only so much as to keep the conversation going. If it's going all right without something, then we don't need it.
Dragon27
Сообщения: 2163
Зарегистрирован: 01 мар 2018, 06:57
Благодарил (а): 32 раза
Поблагодарили: 847 раз

#113

Сообщение Dragon27 »

acapnotic пишет: 07 фев 2020, 10:50 Let's not chase two hares.
Instead, let's kill two birds with one stone.
acapnotic пишет: 07 фев 2020, 10:50 If we decide to stick to "modern terminology" in everything that we discuss here, Michelangelo and I will have to learn it first
And that's a nice opportunity to do just that. I'm not demanding from you two to get an education in math/physics. It's just a matter of updating of some of your incorrect assumptions about their content. In our strive to reform our outdated views and make some personal progress in understanding the reality around us no time is ever inappropriate.
And a little bit of showing-off shouldn't hurt either.
Аватара пользователя
Michelangelo
Сообщения: 4958
Зарегистрирован: 12 апр 2018, 08:19
Благодарил (а): 32 раза
Поблагодарили: 705 раз

#114

Сообщение Michelangelo »

Dragon27, I completely agree with acapnotic upon the fact that we would need to put a lot of effort to keep all the terminology in our mind, whereas I haven't been able to keep even the simplest special words in my memory and I have always kept mixing them up. Moreover, it won't have a practical feasibility unless we decide to work in the certain field of the science, i.e. physics. Otherwise the time will be wasted.

Should you decide to show us proper examples of using terminology without adding any efforts to memorising useless terms, we will try to follow you, however, I won't ever be sure that I will manage that. I could easily misuse or mix up all the terms.

Anyway, we are not going to reach proper use of scientific terminology as we are not going to enter any university in the UK or USA, where that terminology could become handy.
Dragon27 пишет: 07 фев 2020, 11:07 it's just a matter of updating of some of your incorrect assumptions about their content. In our strive to reform our outdated views and make some personal progress in understanding the reality around us no time is ever inappropriate.
Why do you think that we have outdated views? Don't you know that our country is moving towards Christianity and Mongol-Tatar Yoke? Therefore, lack of progress in our knowledge and understanding is exactly what is demanded by our governments. Therefore it is logically to know less and rely on religion in scientific issues, don't you think? Unless you are going to move to the USA or any other developed country, where are you going to apply all your modern knowledge? I think - nowhere in the countries of the former USSR, therefore it is completely useless to even struggle to obtain any modern knowledge.

By all means, it seems absolutely unnecessary to try to remember such modern terminology. First of all, because it won't make you understand the processes and you will just misuse the terminology without knowing the grounds under it. Second, even if you spent four or five years on revising all your knowledge in physics by using English terms, you won't know how it could help you in your life, therefore, it is unpractical.

You said that we have incorrect assumptions. How could you possibly know that? Maybe we just cannot explain our assumptions properly? Maybe we haven't had any assumption but just pulling each other's legs? We don't know what we are doing. Rather we know - we are looking for something on which we can build up our conversation.

I noticed that we decline from the basic topic again by trying to find our how light and waves could impact the translationless method of studying English. However, Light could have direct influence on that way of learning. Depending whether it is a wave or a particle it could interfere your brain or it could instil some pieces of information into your head if the velocity of those particles is high enough.

But even if we don't think about the effect of light as of a physical phenomenon, it can help us to study by just enlightening the words in textbooks or by producing light from screens of our gadgets. Just think how beneficial light can be in studying English without translation. We need just look into this issue more thoroughly and all the English language will reveal to you within 16 lessons or even quicker. Just think of it.
Последний раз редактировалось Michelangelo 07 фев 2020, 12:47, всего редактировалось 1 раз.
Аватара пользователя
acapnotic
Сообщения: 3912
Зарегистрирован: 02 мар 2018, 07:49
Благодарил (а): 279 раз
Поблагодарили: 922 раза

#115

Сообщение acapnotic »

Dragon27 пишет: 07 фев 2020, 11:07 Instead, let's kill two birds with one stone.
Sounds great, but I definitely see two stones here. The time spent on writing in English and the time spent on learning physics are two separate times. How do you suggest we make them into one?
Dragon27 пишет: 07 фев 2020, 11:07 I'm not demanding from you two to get an education in math/physics.
But we can't use modern terminology if we don't know it, and to know it, we have to learn it. And not just the terms but also the theory behind them, otherwise we won't be able to use them meaningfully. But I must repeat my question: what for? How is it going to help us practise our English? Obviously we can practise it using outdated terminology as well, so what's the point?
Аватара пользователя
acapnotic
Сообщения: 3912
Зарегистрирован: 02 мар 2018, 07:49
Благодарил (а): 279 раз
Поблагодарили: 922 раза

#116

Сообщение acapnotic »

Michelangelo пишет: 07 фев 2020, 11:49 Anyway, we are not going to reach proper use of scientific terminology as we are not going to enter any university in the UK or USA, where that terminology could become handy.
He is either very young or immortal, so it looks OK to him to spend a year or two on impractical matters, just to "enrich his mind" or something like that. I don't know how long dragons live, maybe for centuries. In that case it's perfectly normal for one of them to throw time around. But we, mere humans, should spend what little time we have carefully. Chasing two hares will result in missing both. And then, what will we eat? You can't feed on terminology, no matter how modern it is, can you? We will end up knowing a lot of scientific terms but unable to put a dozen words together in less than half an hour. That's not very good, in my opinion.
Dragon27
Сообщения: 2163
Зарегистрирован: 01 мар 2018, 06:57
Благодарил (а): 32 раза
Поблагодарили: 847 раз

#117

Сообщение Dragon27 »

Michelangelo пишет: 07 фев 2020, 11:49 I completely agree with acapnotic upon the fact that we would need to put a lot of effort to keep all the terminology in our mind, whereas I haven't been able to keep even the simplest special words in my memory and I have always kept mixing them up.
What effort are you talking about? You're already using them, only incorrectly. It shouldn't take much effort to rectify the usage of the terms that I've brought up in my previous post.
Michelangelo пишет: 07 фев 2020, 11:49 Moreover, it won't have a practical feasibility unless we decide to work in the certain field of the science, i.e. physics. Otherwise the time will be wasted.
Well then you shouldn't be using them in the first place (if your refuse to comply with the most basic considerations regarding their proper usage). Why say "energy" and "absolute zero" at all, if you're not a physicist? This is such a childish excuse, come on. I'm not a mathematician, therefore it's okay for me to make basic arithmetic mistakes and use them to prove my argument.
I'm not asking much, just the most basic stuff.
Michelangelo пишет: 07 фев 2020, 11:49 it is completely useless to even struggle to obtain any modern knowledge
Nice attitude.
acapnotic пишет: 07 фев 2020, 12:01 The time spent on writing in English and the time spent on learning physics are two separate times. How do you suggest we make them into one?
Well, you can say that "reading posts in a discussion" and shitposting "writing posts for a discussion" are two different things, and ain't nobody got time for that there's no point in reading when you gotta write. Yet you do it anyway. You might even spend some time thinking over the information in those posts (while you reading them), digest it, learn from it. It all comes in one package. Writing practice is inseparable from thinking practice (or, at least, it should be).
Аватара пользователя
Michelangelo
Сообщения: 4958
Зарегистрирован: 12 апр 2018, 08:19
Благодарил (а): 32 раза
Поблагодарили: 705 раз

#118

Сообщение Michelangelo »

Dragon27 пишет: 07 фев 2020, 13:14 Writing practice is inseparable from thinking practice
I don't think so. I believe that it is impossible to do two things at a time. When you are writing, you cannot think and otherwise, in order to think properly you must focus on the process and not to write during it.

It is like you say "When I am reading I don't translate anything, but just consult the dictionary. I usually use a monolingual dictionary, but when I cannot understand what it is written there I could have a look at an English - Russian dictionary, but I don't translate - I just can imagine everything and I don't know by which words it could be described as I don't translate"
You see people when reading in English cannot do two works and to keep Russian words in their mind. They could just imagine those words, but not translate even when they are using a dictionary :)

That proves that when you are writing you are not thinking, cause you are used to thinking in Russian and you would be doomed to translate. When you are not thinking, you won't translate and you will be using pure English in that case.

However, I don' t believe in this fairy-tale, as as you can see, I don't think, but cannot use pure English. It is my subconsciousness that prevents me from using proper English and provides me with Russian calques all the time :)
Последний раз редактировалось Michelangelo 07 фев 2020, 13:29, всего редактировалось 1 раз.
Dragon27
Сообщения: 2163
Зарегистрирован: 01 мар 2018, 06:57
Благодарил (а): 32 раза
Поблагодарили: 847 раз

#119

Сообщение Dragon27 »

Michelangelo пишет: 07 фев 2020, 13:21 I don't think so. I believe that it is impossible to do two things at a time. When you are writing, you cannot think and otherwise, in order to think properly you must focus on the process and not to write during it.
Well if it's such a difficult and demanding process, detracting from everything else, why not just scrap writing altogether and go with thinking only? It's a much more important part of our lives. And more practical, I might conjecture.
Аватара пользователя
Michelangelo
Сообщения: 4958
Зарегистрирован: 12 апр 2018, 08:19
Благодарил (а): 32 раза
Поблагодарили: 705 раз

#120

Сообщение Michelangelo »

Dragon27 пишет: 07 фев 2020, 13:27 It's a much more important part of our lives.
When you think, you won't be able to work, thus you won't be able to earn your living.
That is why it is more important not to think than otherwise. You see?

I am rereading your words as you said that you provided proper terminology in your message.
Dragon27 пишет: 07 фев 2020, 09:18 Guys, let's use modern terminology, shall we? Mass is invariant, photons don't have it, relativistic mass is an outdated concept. Absolute zero is unachievable, and even at absolute zero there's still quantum zero-point energy. Energy is not "something", it's a property of something (of matter). You can't see energy the way you can't see mass, or speed (but you can see objects moving at certain speeds). E=mc^2 is incorrect in general, it's either E0=mc^2 or E=√((mc^2)^2+(pc)^2).
I cannot see what is the difference between our terminology and yours? Why didn't you like "absolute zero" or any other terms we used?

We were talking about translation-translationless methods of learning English. And we applied this terminology exactly within description of those methods. We didn't want to describe any physical phenomena, especially in modern light. As to physics, we remember only that what we were taught at school about 50 years ago. And the memory tends to fade, therefore, it must not be so strange if we mix up the terminology a little bit.
Dragon27
Сообщения: 2163
Зарегистрирован: 01 мар 2018, 06:57
Благодарил (а): 32 раза
Поблагодарили: 847 раз

#121

Сообщение Dragon27 »

Michelangelo пишет: 07 фев 2020, 13:21 That proves that when you are writing you are not thinking, cause you are used to thinking in Russian and you would be doomed to translate. When you are not thinking, you won't translate and you will be using pure English in that case.
Well, you must get used to thinking in English, then. Or should have done so, before even attempting to develop your English writing ability. Isn't that, like, the secret to success?
Michelangelo пишет: 07 фев 2020, 13:30 I cannot see what is the difference between our terminology and yours? Why didn't you like "absolute zero" or any other terms we used?
The outdated concept was the relativistic mass. Everything else are just misconceptions.
Аватара пользователя
acapnotic
Сообщения: 3912
Зарегистрирован: 02 мар 2018, 07:49
Благодарил (а): 279 раз
Поблагодарили: 922 раза

#122

Сообщение acapnotic »

Dragon27 пишет: 07 фев 2020, 13:14 You're already using them, only incorrectly.
However, you didn't write "let's use modern terminology correctly", just "let's use modern terminology", which clearly implied that we weren't using it. How can you explain that?
Dragon27 пишет: 07 фев 2020, 13:14 Well, you can say that "reading posts in a discussion" and shitposting "writing posts for a discussion" are two different things, and ain't nobody got time for that there's no point in reading when you gotta write. Yet you do it anyway.
Yes, they are two different things. But that's how conversation works. You read, then you write in response. It's like a game. If you don't respond to your partner, he won't participate in the conversation, and without a partner conversation is impossible. Writing to myself works much worse, at least for me. I run out of ideas very soon.

Modern terminology, on the other hand, isn't necessary for conversation, so I don't see why I have to use it. Michelangelo doesn't seem to need it, and you won't write here regularly. So what's the point? I still don't see it.

Even correct use of modern terminology isn't necessary. Its incorrect use only offers more opportunity for conversation. Instead of rewriting here what you have read in Wikipedia, you can use your imagination and logic to draw your own conclusions, and your partner will have the opportunity to criticize them. Whereas if we stick to correctness, we will both be reading Wikipedia all the time instead of improving our writing skills and training our creativity.
Аватара пользователя
Michelangelo
Сообщения: 4958
Зарегистрирован: 12 апр 2018, 08:19
Благодарил (а): 32 раза
Поблагодарили: 705 раз

#123

Сообщение Michelangelo »

Dragon27 пишет: 07 фев 2020, 13:43 The outdated concept was the relativistic mass.
Is it constant now?
I studied this physics more than 40 years ago. I am not sure that I remember everything or at least something. I remember, that it wouldn't be possible to reach the speed of light as your mass would increase indefinitely. You say now it won't. Who checked? We cannot be sure, can we?
Последний раз редактировалось Michelangelo 07 фев 2020, 14:20, всего редактировалось 1 раз.
Dragon27
Сообщения: 2163
Зарегистрирован: 01 мар 2018, 06:57
Благодарил (а): 32 раза
Поблагодарили: 847 раз

#124

Сообщение Dragon27 »

acapnotic пишет: 07 фев 2020, 13:53 However, you didn't write "let's use modern terminology correctly", just "let's use modern terminology", which clearly implied that we weren't using it. How can you explain that?
I referred specifically to the concept of relativistic mass (which may not have been obvious in my original post, but certainly was in my mind). And then I've just listed some (common) misconceptions about other scientifical concepts mentioned in the discussion.
acapnotic пишет: 07 фев 2020, 13:53 Writing to myself works much worse, at least for me. I run out of ideas very soon.
But then that would be the Real Writing Practice. Pure, unadulterated. Writing essays and stuff (like paveltashkinov). Probably, requires an even more developed thinking apparatus than a simple forum back-and-forth.

Anyways, "how conversation works" is clearly missing the "thinking" part somewhere in between the usual "You read, then you write in response" steps.
Michelangelo пишет: 07 фев 2020, 13:53 Is it constant now?
Relativistic mass isn't constant - it's just fallen out of use (even though some school textbooks are still clinging to that early 20th century relic). And with it all the ideas about mass changing with speed and energy being equivalent to mass, that are connected. The concept of "invariant mass" has taken over it. It's better that way, the concept of relativistic mass only confuses people.
Michelangelo пишет: 07 фев 2020, 13:53 I remember, that it wouldn't be possible to reach the speed of light as your mass would increase indefinitely. You say not it won't.
Your energy would increase indefinitely.
Аватара пользователя
Michelangelo
Сообщения: 4958
Зарегистрирован: 12 апр 2018, 08:19
Благодарил (а): 32 раза
Поблагодарили: 705 раз

#125

Сообщение Michelangelo »

Dragon27 пишет: 07 фев 2020, 14:17 Your energy would increase indefinitely.
Do you mean "Amount of Energy required for reaching the speed of light" would increase infinitely

It makes it the same - whether we need an infinite amount of energy, or our mass grows infinitely - we won't ever reach that speed. No difference is observed.
I was starting to think that something new has been discovered over last forty years. Now I see that it is just a play of words.

As far as I understood, they decided to make the mass invariant cause they discovered the neutrino, which has no mass and doesn't comply with the theory of relativity. But they didn't invent anything new, they just decided to make energy infinite instead of mass, therefore we must say that Einstein's theory is still in operation.
Последний раз редактировалось Michelangelo 07 фев 2020, 14:43, всего редактировалось 4 раза.
Ответить
  • Похожие темы
    Ответы
    Просмотры
    Последнее сообщение

Вернуться в «Practise Your English»